Spelling of product in DEFINITIONS section of patent.

[Daniel]

Hi there,
I have found a patent that has a spelling error and its part of the DEFINITIONS section of the patent. To be more precise its actually the definition of the product used and the title by which it is known worldwide. As you can see I don't want to mention the specific patent or product.

[still_learnin]

What's your question?

[Daniel]

Is the patent still valid?

[still_learnin]

Hi there,
I have found a patent that has a spelling error and its part of the DEFINITIONS section of the patent. To be more precise its actually the definition of the product used and the title by which it is known worldwide. As you can see I don't want to mention the specific patent or product.

Is the patent still valid?

So the error is that the term being "defined" in the patent is actually misspelled? Something like:

As used herein, the word "Ez-Wipe" means a sheet product with ...

You say the misspelled word is the "title by which the product is known worldwide"? Are you talking about a  trademark?

You've piqued my interest, which is why I'm asking these questions. But the threshold question is this: is the misspelled term in the *claims* ? If not, the error may be irrelevant.

Another factor to consider: does the misspelling turn the word into *another* word ... ie, "google" misspelled as "goggle"?

Note that even if the misspelling is a problem, the patent does not automatically become invalid. That is, the patent would have to be challenged in a judicial proceeding, the result of which might be that one or more claims are found invalid. Moreoever, I think this sort of error would have to be challenged in a court, as opposed to an administrative panel (ie, PTAB).

[Daniel]

As used herein, a "(This word is used in the Claims)" is a chemical compound that is found in the tree species (This Latin Term is incorrect - it is two words and the second word changes meaning to a completely different word) - The patent uses (This word is used in the Claims) many times in the claims. The only other time the patent uses the latin term is where the second word is omitted and the first remains, Here it appears in the Examples as one word.

[Robert K S]

Applicants for patent are entitled to define (or redefine) terms however they want in their specifications.  In such cases, the specification definition, and not the general definition, if any, is the one that applies to construe the claims.

[Daniel]

 Please excuse my lack of understanding.
It is a specific tree that is defined by its latin name and if the wrong name was used, then that specific tree is not the tree referred to in the Patent.
So if contested in court it (the patent) could be proved to be invalid?

[still_learnin]

Applicants for patent are entitled to define (or redefine) terms however they want in their specifications.  In such cases, the specification definition, and not the general definition, if any, is the one that applies to construe the claims.

It is a specific tree that is defined by its latin name and if the wrong name was used, then that specific tree is not the tree referred to in the Patent.

Right. So does the Applicant's ability to redefine a term stretch to include clear errors, as understood by a POSITA?

Or even creative redefinition, e.g., "as used herein, 'red' means 'blue' "

[Robert K S]

Daniel, if the applicant defines "red" to mean "blue" in the specification, that doesn't make the patent's claims directed to a "red widget" invalid.  It just means that the patent doesn't cover red widgets, it only covers blue widgets.

During prosecution, bizarro redefinitions might potentially be objected to as confusing, but once the patent has issued, it enjoys the presumption of validity.

[Daniel]

Okay thanks for clearing that up. I'm not really interested in taking this any further ... So with that I will give you the actual patent that i have been referring to, just to clarify... I dont do secrets if i can help it!

patft    place dot here  uspto     Place dot here    gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507
Patent 001

[Rabid Levity]

... PN/6630507...

Haha, "This is your government on drugs".

[Rabid Levity]

Also useful for making Levity is to note they claimed the plant source for cannabinoids is "Cannabis saliva" (ewww) instead of "sativa". 

Was this the typo you were referring to?

[Robert K S]

Did you check PAIR to make sure that it wasn't just the printing office that was high?

[Daniel]

yes levity 

[Rabid Levity]

Did you check PAIR to make sure that it wasn't just the printing office that was high?

I actually did, because I looked at it first in html and recognize that sometimes ocr mistakes lower case "T" and "L", so then checked the pub to see if it was isolated to the html, and then to pair when the pub also read as "saliva".  Alas, it was filed early enough that there's no original papers in the IFW.


Back to the OP's question - this sort of typo would not have made the claims defective.